Pro‐family Organizations in Calgary, 1998: Beliefs, Interconnections and Allies*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous comparons les convictions des différents groupes pro‐famille de Calgary et nous préscntons la structure des liens qui unissent ces groupes. Les données, recueillies en 1998, proviennent de documents et d'entretiens semi‐structurés avec les chefs de file de ces groupes. Nous abordons ici trois problèmes de recherche. Tout d'abord, nous examinons la teneur des relations entre groupes pro‐famille et pro‐vie. Tous les groupes pro‐famille, même ceux qui se prononcent résolument contre l'avortement, se dis‐tinguent des groupes pro‐vie sur le plan tant organisational que politique. Ensuite, nous nous penchons sur le rôle des croyances chré‐tiennes au sein du mouvement. Nous affirmons que, bien que les groupes chrétiens aient été dominants en 1998, la promotion, de la famille hétérosexuelle nucléaire, et non les questions de doctrine, a été fondamentale pour le mouvement. Enfin, nous examinons si le mouvement s'est scindé entre socioconservateurs et centristes, les centristes étant peu représentatifs en 1998. En outre, l'un des groupes présentant un profil centriste, la National Foundation for Family Research and Education, a tout fait pour légitimer du point de vue scientifique les arguments moraux des socioconservateurs en faveur de la famille. En conclusion, nous soutenons que le mouvement pro‐famille à Calgary s'est éloigné de sa vocation initiale de contre‐mouvement antiféministe. Dans l'avenir, la popularité du mouvement pro‐famille au Canada dépendra peut‐être des valeurs postféministes qu'il affichera. This paper presents a comparative study of the beliefs of pro‐family organizations in Calgary and a structural mapping of organizational ties. Data were gathered in 1998 from documents and semi‐structured interviews with group leaders. Three research problems are addressed. The first concerns the closeness of the relationship between pro‐family and pro‐life groups. We find that all pro‐family groups, even those with strong anti‐abortion convictions, were organizationally and politically distinctive from pro‐life groups. The second problem considers the role of Christian beliefs in the movement. We ascertain that although Christian groups were dominant in 1998, promotion of the heterosexual nuclear family, not doctrinal issues, was fundamental to the movement. The third problem concerns whether the movement was bifurcated between social conservative and centrist segments. The centrist segment was quite weak in 1998. Furthermore, one of the groups with a centrist persona, the National Foundation for Family Research and Education, strove to supply scientific legitimation for social conservatives' moral claims about the family. In conclusion, the article argues that the pro‐family movement in Calgary has broken free of its initial phase as an anti‐feminist countermovement and suggests that the future popularity of pro‐family advocacy in Canada will be proportional to the degree that it is couched in a post‐feminist framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".